Sharrows Advocates Fall Short
The motoring public can breath easy tonight; Sharrows in Corona del Mar are at least temporarily delayed, if not totally dead and we can thank our very own Bike Safety Committee for saving us from this safety improvement. (What’s a Sharrow? Read this earlier post.)
Ironically, if we didn’t have a Bike Safety Committee we’d already have Sharrows on Coast Hwy through Corona del Mar.
City Manager Dave Kiff gave off hints quite awhile ago. The City is ready to paint them; they know the costs. They’re prepared to combine it with other striping that’s designed to make some critical intersections safer for cyclists, but our own committee feels it’s not safe for cyclists.
“We haven’t explored an alternative route,” is Tony Petros’ confuse and deflect strategy. “I saw horrible traffic on the Memorial Day weekend, when traffic was virtually stopped in CdM,” is Denis LaBonge’s reason for protecting us from cars; never mind that slow traffic, which is what comes with heavy traffic, isn’t so dangerous to cyclists – it’s high speed traffic that’s gonna get you. John Heffernan complained about two young women riding their bikes on Bayside Drive, enjoying the Sharrows, but apparently unaware that John was in his car waiting impatiently behind them – I guess the inference here is that the bad behavior of these two justifies denying all cyclists a well proven safety feature on Coast Hwy. Here’s how the cookie crumbled tonight:
Denis LaBonge: no
Tony Petros: no
John Heffernan: no
Sean Matsler: yes
Stephen Sholkoff: yes
Barbara Danzi: absent
You can’t take Sharrows to the City Council when you don’t have a consensus from your ‘advocates’, Committee Chair, Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Gardner was quick to assess. Instead she proposed sitting on the issue for now – I suppose so it can die a quiet death from neglect, unlike going out in a fireball as I’m trying here.
Me, I’m not on the Committee; previously I was a member of the Bike Safety Task Force when I discovered the work that Charlie Gandy and others in Long Beach had done to innovate for bike safety. Yes, I know; Belmont Shore is different from Corona del Mar. It’s not a State Highway and our traffic volumes are heavier, not to mention the speed limit – 35 in CdM while the lights are timed at 6 mph in Belmont Shore. But the comparison that comes to mind for me tonight is the commitment from the top; Long Beach has it and we fell short.
In an upcoming interview with Portland’s Mia Birk, you’ll hear her boil it all down to a single issue: resistance to change. Today Portland is rated Platinum as a Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Cyclists, but it didn’t start out that way. Mia joined the City as a humble bike advocate and had to deal with bigger setbacks than this during her 6 years in government. It takes time and it takes patience; it’s a game of inches.
Everyone had their chance to speak tonight. If there had been even 20 or 30 bike enthusiasts in the audience the issue might have had a chance; instead, it went down to a quiet defeat.
Bikes in Lane sign designed by Cheryl Schmitt, Transportation Coordinator, City of Santa Cruz. See Cheryl’s interview here.
Friday, January 6th 2012 at 2:27 pm |
[...] an F. The highlight of ignominy came mid-year when these City Council appointed bike advocates voted against painting Sharrows on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. The Committee’s charter has expired, but will likely be [...]
Saturday, December 31st 2011 at 7:44 am |
[...] an F. The highlight of ignominy came mid-year when these City Council appointed bike advocates voted against painting Sharrows on Coast Highway through Corona del Mar. The Committee’s charter has expired, but will likely be [...]
Thursday, June 16th 2011 at 11:22 pm |
OTOH here in Laguna, the LB City Council passed a motion to build Sharrows on a northern route through the back streets, not PCH. The agenda bill was supported by cycling advocates in the audience, three of them spoke to council before the vote. If cycling advocates in NB want Sharrows, then SHOW-UP to your Council meetings and support your agenda. In the future it would be nice to see Sharrows on PCH consistently placed in all our beach cities, where appropriate. That means where the traffic speeds are low enough to be compatible with all cyclists using PCH. Lets work together to see Sharrows in all our beach cities.
Monday, June 13th 2011 at 9:49 am |
George,
A city or county has no authority to illegalize bicycle riding on California’s public roads, except for the option to ban cycling on sidewalks (and banning virtually everything but motor vehicles from freeways and expressways).
The City of Newport Beach, has, in fact, made bicycling (other than tricycles) illegal on most of its sidewalks.
Sunday, June 12th 2011 at 9:03 am |
If bikes on PCH is so dangerous that we need to route them elsewhere, then we may as well quit mincing words and make them illegal on PCH through Corona del Mar. A city ordinance would also shift any liability from the city to cyclists in the event of an accident.
That the California Vehicle Code gives equal rights to the road for bicyclists and motorists seems lost on the no votes.
Friday, June 10th 2011 at 4:57 pm |
These guys are idiots
Friday, June 10th 2011 at 11:23 am |
@Bernie: Bike planner extraordinaire James Mackay used shared lane markings for Denver CO in 1993 — his design was the famous “bike in the house” design. San Francisco came up with the chevron design in 2004 that’s in the current MUTCD.
Too bad about the conservatism among your own bike committee :-(
Wednesday, June 8th 2011 at 1:23 pm |
Once again I want to offer the same comments I previously made about the original purpose for the use of Sharrows, which started in our region in SF as far as I know. It was designed to protect bicycle riders from being hit by parked car doors being swung out. It is intended to be used on streets/roads that are Class III Bike Lanes with on-street parking and shoulders too narrow for Class II bike lanes. The average length of a car door is 3ft so the arc of a car door being swung out is 3 ft. and that would be the location of the sharrow. It would also protect the drivers and their motor vehicles from being side-swiped by passing motor vehicles in the travel lane.
In Petaluma we have had cars and trucks side-swipe parked vehicles with open doors and/or destroy rear view mirrors torn off by vehicles in the travel lanes of our narrow roads, caused by not allowing enough clearance. I was on the committee that reviewed and recommended our City Council to use sharrows. These are the main or only reasons we are using them in Petaluma.
I think it is a misrepresentation for the Newport Beach City Manage Dave Kiff, to state in his memo to the public that “sharrows are another way to indicate a Share the Road warning for motor vehicle drivers”. It definitely does not have that as the main purpose and although it may also offer that message, it is secondary.
I strongly urge you and your committee to correct everyone that is misrepresenting the main safety message for the use of sharrows as soon as possible. The perception by the public that shorrows means “share the road” will work against jurisdictions that need public acceptance for the their use. Some good public relations that uses common sense reasons for the use of sharrows will win support. What appears to be happening now in your area is just the opposite.
Good luck!
Wednesday, June 8th 2011 at 10:43 am |
I was really surprised at the discussion and vote. I thought that I was initially the only skeptical one, and I changed my mind after “thoughtful” research on paper and pavement.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 9:02 pm |
Sharrows are a simple, visual reminder to “share the road” with cyclists. It really is not that measurable or scientific. The right to ride already exists. The reminder that bikes are there, or might be, is what sharrows offer to a driver.
We are currently visiting Seattle, there are sharrows all over this city, bike racks everywhere and these cyclists are all-weather and committed. Drivers are used to the bike traffic and the amount of commuters is astounding! Let’s remember that it takes time to make changes and will not happen overnight.
Thanks, Frank. Don’t give up CDM!
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 6:19 pm |
That is too bad. I commend you for your work on this.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 5:44 pm |
This brings up a very important issue that could derail us here as well.
It would help immensely if we were all on the same page WRT Sharrows.
I know that’s a bit like herding cats… but the closer we can all be in agreement – the smoother this will go.
If we have mixed messages – e.g. Sharrows Only, Green bike line w/ sharrows, Class 2 , etc… The Council might delay this even further. I strongly suggest we unite and show up in support of the PTC recommendation, AND the Staff’s recommendation… with the addition of a Citizens task Group to collaborate with.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 5:31 pm |
Going forward, one suggestion:
NB’s BS Committee was a commendable idea drawing some committed talent to bear. Unfortunately, like many well meaning government efforts, it’s easily distracted by personal agendas and politics. It also lulls effected citizens into believing that government is taking care of the problem.
If I may, one suggestion: Newport Beach needs an ad-hoc Bicycle Advisory Committee, a citizens group to keep the best interests of cyclists in the spotlight. Never mind that the group gets no official recognition, or includes no “professionals” or experts. Its members can speak before City Council, critique (or praise) the job the BS committee or city staff is doing, and will find itself quoted in most media accounts right along with the officials.
NB is still miles ahead of some other OC cities with the efforts the BS committee has made to date. Perhaps this setback will rally a few new folks to action.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 12:34 pm |
I wish the committee members could all take one of the Bikeleague’s Smart Cycling 101 courses. They’d have a better understanding of the issues, and would be much better equipped to make informed decisions.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 11:55 am |
One of several practical problems with an ‘alternate route’ is that PCH is where most local commuting and recreational cyclists want to ride for both safety and access and sporting cyclists wish to ride for exercise.
It may sound counterintuitive, but the side streets are not the cycling safe haven some imagine them to be. Think about why motorists don’t flock to the back streets through CDM: the narrowness of the undivided lanes, motorists playing ‘chicken’ with each other at stop signs, cars exiting and entering driveways, gutters, joggers and baby-stroller pushers in the street are a nuisance for a motorist but are a nuisance and a hazard for a cyclist. Look, it’s a very crowded world and even if there were no cyclists then CDM – both PCH and the back streets – would still be a high-traffic driving environment. The only time I ride off of PCH (through the Village) with safety in mind is when I am with my nine year old son, and we traverse CDM by going down Marguerite to Ocean where he can (illegally but safely) ride on the sidewalk while I shepherd him from the street while dodging the U-turning and double parked cars fighting for parking.
Now personally, I stop regularly at Wells Fargo, Ace Hardware, Starbucks, the US Post Office, CDM Yogurt (and I am about to test Fast Eddie’s tolerance for lycra when next due for a haircut).
Sporting cyclists use PCH because the speeds at which they ride (generally as fast through town as the cars passing us just to wait for us at the red light…) are not appropriate for side streets.
Besides safety and access for locals, there is the fact that many cyclists on PCH are passing through. It is the route one takes when riding up and down the California coast. And CDM is just one more town to negotiate. No cyclist looks for ‘alternate routes’ through places like CDM. In fact, the opposite is true. When cyclists pull in to towns historically famous for oily, truck-worn roads, shipyards and freight terminals, they may contemplate another way through town. But when a cyclist comes to a garden setting like CDM, he anticipates the locals will have figured out how to educate the motorists which use its roads. He doesn’t expect to be terrorized in the right lane or shunted past Main Street like Rambo.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 7:28 am |
Question: What is this “magical” alternative route through CDM John and Tony refer to? Is there a secret tunnel that runs under CDM? I live here and have a difficult enough time (which includes the very narrow Goldenrod bridge).
Are there going to be docents placed at the entrance to the city? Hello – my name is Hans – “I will be your guide through the Flower Streets – enjoy the ride”
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 6:46 am |
Check out this document. In particular, the sign on page 104 of the document (113) was designed by me and has been in place for 10? years.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/Complete-Intersections-A-Guide-to-Reconstructing-Intersections-and-Interchanges-for-Bicyclists-and-Pedestirans.pdf
Cheryl Schmitt
Transportation Coordinator
City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department
Frank: Cheryl was an early interview; listen here.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 6:25 am |
The obstructionists on the BS committee are just that: defenders of the status quo.
Problem for them is, the status isn’t quo. More bikes are coming to PCH and the cars will simply continue to stall on busy weekends like they do now. The obstructionists are delusional if they think bicycles cause the congestion, just as Tony deludes himself that some magic alternate route exists, it just hasn’t been “explored” yet.
Personally, I’ve explored many streets on my rides through CdM and I’ll continue to use PCH.
Frank, you’re right about the process. Sharrows are “methadone for bike lane addicts,” one of several steps down from our car dependency that relegates bikes to toy status. As our bicycle culture evolves bicycles will simply occupy more space in front of John Heffernan’s car– with or without sharrows– and he will either get over it or die, or both. Ultimately bikes will prevail.
I regret that OCBC could not rally more cyclists to attend the meeting.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 5:26 am |
I have to be honest – the dissent is baffling to me (from members that actually ride too). The CVC allows for this already and sharrows just “may” prevent some hostile encounters from uneducated drivers. If not for my cycling experience I would not know that we as cyclists should NOT be riding in that door impact zone and can take the lane. I would never flaunt the right or intentionally impede traffic but is that the fear? Again, baffling.
I had to go out after the meeting and try to twist my handlebars off with brute force and frustration.
Tuesday, June 7th 2011 at 5:12 am |
Very disappointing.
Monday, June 6th 2011 at 10:54 pm |
Twitter: Want a good example why change needs community support – look no further than this recent defeat in Corona del Mar.
Monday, June 6th 2011 at 10:23 pm |
Sorry to hear about the Corona Del Mar Sharrows. Change is a hard thing to manage when people have deep rooted opinions.
I think that place could have benefited from a more village type atmosphere rather than a cluster around PCH.
I understand the comment about the European mentality as hundreds of bicyclists stream out of school and take over the traffic lanes each day in the cities of Belgium.
We don’t mind. It is a fact of life.
Monday, June 6th 2011 at 9:11 pm |
Maybe as one of the few committee members who has three times been carted off to Hoag with bike injuries sufficient to be kept overnight. I am as keen as anyone on bike safety, likely for my own life, and to save me from attending another sentencing hearing or a cyclist funeral. To me the sharrows issue needs to be solved with an alternative route through CDM, which I don’t think is on PCH in CDM. And I don’t think it is on Bayside Drive. If you have a non-PCH sharrows route through CDM send it around to our committee members. Thanks for your keen interest in bike safety. John
p/s My brother, an MD, is an avid Portland, OR, cyclist and keeps me up on what Portland is doing to safeguard its cyclists, where to my mind, cyclists are more viewed in the European manner than as road obstructions and causing traffic delays are they most often are seen here.